[REVIEW]: MacroModelling.jl: A Julia package for developing and solving dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@thorek1@jbytecode<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @gdalle, @jmejia8 Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8374466

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1a469cf03f3c1fd96db74f97a02c493c"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1a469cf03f3c1fd96db74f97a02c493c/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1a469cf03f3c1fd96db74f97a02c493c/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/1a469cf03f3c1fd96db74f97a02c493c)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@Athene-ai & @daviddewhurst & @gdalle, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review. First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @jbytecode know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @gdalle

📝 Checklist for @jmejia8

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Hello humans, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.07 s (988.4 files/s, 257497.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                           51           4709           1627          10978
Markdown                        12            357              0            998
YAML                             5              5             13            157
TOML                             2              6              0             95
TeX                              1              3              0             26
JSON                             1              2              0             22
Bourne Shell                     1              4              1             14
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            73           5086           1641          12290
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 484

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.2139/ssrn.2364989 may be a valid DOI for title: Fifth-Order Perturbation Solution to DSGE models

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@Athene-ai, @daviddewhurst, @gdalle

This is the review thread. Firstly, type

@editorialbot generate my checklist

to generate your own checklist. In that checklist, there are many check items. Whenever you complete the corresponding task, you can check off them.

Please write your comments as separate posts and do not modify your checklist descriptions.

The review process is interactive so you can always interact with the authors, reviewers, and the editor. You can also create issues and pull requests in the target repository. Please do mention this thread's URL in the issues so we can keep tracking what is going on out of our world.

Please do not hesitate to ask me about anything, anytime.

Thank you in advance!

Athene-ai commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @Athene-ai

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/thorek1/MacroModelling.jl?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@thorek1) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@Athene-ai - You couldn't have finished the entire review in 5 minutes, right?

Athene-ai commented 1 year ago

Yes I have

On Tuesday, 27 June 2023, Mehmet Hakan Satman @.***> wrote:

@Athene-ai https://github.com/Athene-ai - You couldn't have finished the entire review in 5 minutes, right?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5598#issuecomment-1609877157, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANGYEVC4TE2IPQPNRZ75BNLXNMEKDANCNFSM6AAAAAAZV237TM . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

-- Daniela Cialfi, PhD

Postdoctoral researcher University "G.D'Annunzio" - Chieti Pescara Viale Pindaro 42 - 65127 Pescara ( Italy ) Tel. +39 3930571128 Email: @.*** < https://webmail.unich.it/horde/imp/message.php?mailbox=INBOX.sent-mail&index=37#>

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@Athene-ai - Do you have any suggestions, corrections, or comments on software and manuscript?

gdalle commented 1 year ago

You might have missed a few spots. For instance the automated tests are currently failing

gdalle commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @gdalle

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/thorek1/MacroModelling.jl?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@thorek1) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

thorek1 commented 1 year ago

Re: currently failing tests

Indeed they can fail on windows machines if the test instance doesn't have enough memory allocated. The latest release failed only on the windows 1.8 instance, but not windows 1.9. This doesn't happen on Linux at all so far.

I tried deleting objects and have the garbage collector free up RAM in the test script but that's not sufficient on windows. Suggestions welcome

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot remove @Athene-ai from reviewers

@Athene-ai - I am so sorry for this but I think I must remove your role from this submission because of your very quick review without any comments, corrections, and suggestions. Please do not take this as personally.

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

@Athene-ai removed from the reviewers list!

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@daviddewhurst, @gdalle - Could you please update status and inform us on how is your review going?

@daviddewhurst - Please generate your task list before starting your review.

Thank you in advance!

gdalle commented 1 year ago

I've been busy but I have not forgotten! Will get to it this weekend

gdalle commented 1 year ago

Finished my first round of review, see the issues above. For now I'm especially waiting on https://github.com/thorek1/MacroModelling.jl/issues/33 to be fixed so that I can evaluate reproducibility.

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@gdalle - thank you for the status update

gdalle commented 1 year ago

FYI the review is stalling because @thorek1 and I are working together to improve one of my packages, which is a dependency of MacroModelling.jl

Do we have a second reviewer who could assess the domain-specific aspects of the package?

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@gdalle - you can directly interact with our second reviewer @daviddewhurst - maybe they can help, by the way reviewing the dependencies requires another submission and it does not belong to this submission.

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@daviddewhurst - could you please generate your task list and start your review? thank you in advance.

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

Dear all, I am wondering if our reviewer (@daviddewhurst) is unable to receive GitHub notifications. I've just sent a reminder email to invite them to the issue and start their review. If we still fail to get a response in a few days, we will need to find another suitable reviewer, FYI.

gdalle commented 1 year ago

by the way reviewing the dependencies requires another submission and it does not belong to this submission.

I wasn't reviewing the dependencies, rather improving one of them (which I develop) to help the author of the current package @thorek1. This is nearly done now so I'll be able to resume the review shortly

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@gdalle - Thank you for the update.

I also sent an email to @daviddewhurst ; however, I have not received a response yet. I plan to wait for a while, but if we do not receive a reply, I will need to find another suitable option for submission. Just letting you know.

gdalle commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

gdalle commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot commands

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

Hello @gdalle, here are the things you can ask me to do:


# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

gdalle commented 1 year ago

Review finished on my end. There are a few sentences to add and things to tweak (see the issues I opened on the MacroModelling.jl repo), but after that, the paper and package will be good to go.

Disclaimer: as stated before, I am not an economist, so I cannot evaluate the scientific content of the submission.

Disclaimer 2: @thorek1 and I collaborated on my package ImplicitDifferentiation.jl, so as to improve its usefulness for MacroModelling.jl.

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@daviddewhurst is still inactive in GitHub.

@thorek1 - I think now it is time to find an other reviewer. Do you have a suggestion?

@gdalle - Thank you for your review. If you have suggestions for a potential 2nd reviewer, you are also welcome.

thorek1 commented 1 year ago

@ rickecon would be a good fit because he knows the kind of models the package works with

gdalle commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

👋👋👋 Dear @rickecon 👋👋👋

Would you be willing to assist in reviewing this submission for JOSS (Journal of Open Source Software)?

JOSS publishes articles about open source research software. The submission I'd like you to review is titled: "MacroModelling.jl: A Julia package for developing and solving dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models". You can find more information at the top of this Github issue (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5598).

The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. If you have any questions please let me know.

We have already first reviewer's report, and we failed to get even a life signal from the second reviewer. I need someone else's help to get this manuscript reviewed.

Thank you in advance!

gdalle commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

gdalle commented 1 year ago

Opened a PR for some minor formatting / syntax details, and then as far as I'm concerned this is good to go

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

👋👋👋 Dear @y1my1 👋👋👋

Would you be willing to assist in reviewing this submission for JOSS (Journal of Open Source Software)?

JOSS publishes articles about open source research software. The submission I'd like you to review is titled: "MacroModelling.jl: A Julia package for developing and solving dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models". You can find more information at the top of this Github issue (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5598).

The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. If you have any questions please let me know.

We have already first reviewer's report, and we failed to get even a life signal from the second reviewer. I need someone else's help to get this manuscript reviewed.

Thank you in advance!

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

👋👋👋 Dear @peanutfun 👋👋👋

Would you be willing to assist in reviewing this submission for JOSS (Journal of Open Source Software)?

JOSS publishes articles about open source research software. The submission I'd like you to review is titled: "MacroModelling.jl: A Julia package for developing and solving dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models". You can find more information at the top of this Github issue (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5598).

The review process at JOSS is unique: it takes place in a GitHub issue, is open, and author-reviewer-editor conversations are encouraged. If you have any questions please let me know.

We have already first reviewer's report, and we failed to get even a life signal from the second reviewer. I need someone else's help to get this manuscript reviewed.

Thank you in advance!

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@jmejia8 - I am encountering difficulties in finding a second reviewer for this submission. Our first reviewer has almost completed their review, but we cannot reach the second reviewer. Would you consider assisting in reviewing this submission?

jmejia8 commented 1 year ago

Sure. Before accepting, let me know the deadline so as not to delay the review any further.

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@jmejia8 - I think a time span of 3-4 weeks is fair. Is that okay for you?

jmejia8 commented 1 year ago

That's ok for me.

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot remove @daviddewhurst from reviewers

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

@daviddewhurst removed from the reviewers list!

jbytecode commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot add @jmejia8 as reviewer

@jmejia8 - Please type @editorialbot generate my checklist to generate your task list. Thank you for accepting our invitation.

editorialbot commented 1 year ago

@jmejia8 added to the reviewers list!

jmejia8 commented 1 year ago

Review checklist for @jmejia8

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/thorek1/MacroModelling.jl?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@thorek1) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

jmejia8 commented 1 year ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

openjournals / joss-reviews